Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!uunet!in3.uu.net!192.220.251.22!netnews.nwnet.net!news-hub.interserv.net!news.sprynet.com!not-for-mail From: lcappite@sprynet.com (Goatboy) Newsgroups: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Linux or FreeBSD (or something else?) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 03:18:16 GMT Organization: Sprynet News Service Lines: 48 Message-ID: <33457087.6003026@news.sprynet.com> References: <332c9a76.3278270@news.adelaide.on.net> <01bc32f2$3783f300$04000001@Colin> <E79F14.n7z@forthdv.pfm-mainz.de> <332f5ffb.519605@news.sprynet.com> <5h51ma$b1u$2@kayrad.ziplink.net> <3337e3ad.1847437@news.sprynet.com> <5hbh2g$gah$1@kayrad.ziplink.net> <333990e3.2587820@news.sprynet.com> <333EE698.41C67EA6@kzin.dorm.umd.edu> <3343cbbf.1091644@news.sprynet.com> <5i1216$gc4$1@news3.realtime.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: dd74-253.compuserve.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au alt.os.linux:19733 comp.os.linux.misc:167852 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:38379 >More stable than "any" other OS but Linux or freebsd? You're kidding, >right? And what about the "bug fix" set of patches that introduced >more bugs than it fixed? 1) I didn't say all OSs. 2) That bug fix was for NT4. And they fixed in with the second patch. >Of course, when talking about networking you're usually not talking >about home networks. For real networks, FreeBSD is better. >As for MS making computing easier--stick with herding your goats. Many >of the incompatibilities we suffer from come from Microsoft's >insistance on ignoring any standards and attempting to create their >own standards that work only on MS operating systems...just lilke they >seem to be trying to do with Java at the moment. Since when is copying >Apple (who, of course, copied Xerox) a major step in making computing >easier? 1) I could care less about Java. It's slow, inefficient, and all hype and no content. I hope it does just like beta. 2) MS has made computing easier. To install a prog in win95, u insert the cd, and the install prog runs. With Linux, u switch to the cd, run some make commands, puts various files in various dirs, edit lots of config files written in greek, and on and on... Gee, which is easier? >Of all the OS's I've seen, the most elegant and easiest to use had to >be Nextstep. Others are only now starting to catch up. Why then was it a mass market failure? And if it's so great, why aren't u using it? And is it as free as linux? Don't think so. >Before we leave the subject of "making computing easier"--can we say >"Bob"? Or maybe "Plug and play"? Bob did suck. PnP doesn't. I have a 4 year old IBM PS/1 486, and win recognized all my devices and I haven't had to deal with any hardware probs yet. >Sheesh, give me a break from the "Goatboys" of the world who haven't >been around long enough to support their theories...and who buy into >Microsoft's BS about how great they are. I don't need to be around as long as you to know that an OS designed 25 years ago on computers with less than 64K RAM is easier to use than one that was made on computers running at 200MHz and with 64MB RAM 4 years ago (like NT).